Actually I think they would have run seam locos with the front facing up hill if possible, to keep the water over the crown sheet, this is th emost crtical part of the boiler. Run nose down on a steep grade, if enough water is kept in to cover the crown sheet, water could eb sucked int he steam dome and locomotive cylinders can't compress water any more than a car's internal combustion engine can.
With poor brakes, it was often the rule that the locomotive had to be on the downhill side, so perhaps push out of the top to the first tail, short run, less steep, then engine goign backwards on the downhills side downt he long main part of the grade
Or simply like most model railroads, compromises had to be made to get it all to fit, and leaving off some runarounds that would make for a more prototypical operation is the price to be paid to have it in there at all.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I'll describe the scene to you Rich.
The loco is facing towards the tail track, or, the front of the loco faces to the right, in front of the loco are 2 loaded log cars, and a caboose at the end. The train is on the run around track.
In the scene, and going by the caption under the picture, the loco is ready to shove the train down to the tail track, and then, with the loco in reverse, head down the hill, eventually making it's way to the log dump pond at Ogden Mill.
Mike.
My You Tube
Well, now, I'm in trouble because I am not a subscriber.
Rich
Alton Junction
The lay out and story is in the April 2020 issue. Page 33 shows the train ready to leave the run around at camp 2.
The log loader is on the stub end track, at the bottom of the lay out plan, closest to the backdrop.
richhotrainWhich article?
current issue
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
mbinsewi I was just checking out the article. Page 33, picture 5 shows the train with a load, ready to shove down to the tail track, and on to the log dump at Ogden Mill. It gives us an idea of which way the loco is facing. Mike.
I was just checking out the article. Page 33, picture 5 shows the train with a load, ready to shove down to the tail track, and on to the log dump at Ogden Mill.
It gives us an idea of which way the loco is facing.
Where on the layout is the train with a load and which way is the loco facing?
As I try to visualize the operation and direction of the locomotive, all of that track work at the bottom of the diagram originates at the bottom of the loop on the bottom left portion of the track diagram. Assuming that a locomotive enters that bottom track work facing east, without any provision down there to turn around the locomotive, it would have to back up all the way from the bottom right to the bottom left to exit the campsites.
Doughlessthe railroad would always want the loco to be in the correct position (notably facing downhill as to keep the water in the boiler)
but the runaround doesn't change which direction the loco faces, just which end of the train it is on.
and i assume it handles trailing spurs on the way up and the facing spurs on the way down after the loco changed ends.
gregc richhotrain referencing the third track from the bottom. actually the 4th. there's the bottom spur at camp #2, the 2 runaround tracks. the 4th from the bottom is the track going left to the mainline and right to the switchback. i think the runaround would be better suited on that 4th track because train is limited by the switchback tail. but Douglas' comment about grade makes sense
richhotrain referencing the third track from the bottom.
actually the 4th. there's the bottom spur at camp #2, the 2 runaround tracks. the 4th from the bottom is the track going left to the mainline and right to the switchback.
i think the runaround would be better suited on that 4th track because train is limited by the switchback tail.
but Douglas' comment about grade makes sense
I'm changing my previous comment as I look further at the plan. There is a runaround track at the mainline, which is all the way around to the bottom of the hill.
I think the idea is that with that long of a run to the camps and the mix of facing and trailing spurs, the railroad would always want the loco to be in the correct position (notably facing downhill as to keep the water in the boiler) so it has to take the train up the hill in one direction. The runarounds are to serve the camps that are facing the wrong direction to switch the cars once they arrive. JMO.
- Douglas
Two things. One, the track plans aren't 100% accurate. Two, they would have run very short trains. The motive power is small, light engines. Even if the tails could hold 6 or more cars, it's unlikely a single one of those small light locos could pull that many up the grade loaded, and in pre-air brake days, getting them down would be fun, too. Have to consider the era as well.
Edit: And looking at it again, both the runaround and the tail seem to be about a square and a half long - those are 24" squares, not 12", so that's 36". Which would be about 6 cars if you are thinking 40-50 foot cars. This is a 19th century layout, cars and locomotives were much smaller.
richhotrainreferencing the third track from the bottom.
Doughless On a prototype, they might do that if there was more flat area up top near the camp than in the valley near the river and the bridge. With the plan, I have issues with the length of the tail track which limits the total number of cars that a train could have backing onto the switchback to begin with. With that short of a tail, I'd want to have a long siding parellel to the main to hold a long cut of cars as I break them up to fit onto the tail. A siding near the main, as you suggest. As it stands, the length of the runaround at the top seems too long in proportion to the tail track. It can hold about 6 cars where the tail can hold only about 3. All JMO.
On a prototype, they might do that if there was more flat area up top near the camp than in the valley near the river and the bridge.
With the plan, I have issues with the length of the tail track which limits the total number of cars that a train could have backing onto the switchback to begin with.
With that short of a tail, I'd want to have a long siding parellel to the main to hold a long cut of cars as I break them up to fit onto the tail. A siding near the main, as you suggest.
As it stands, the length of the runaround at the top seems too long in proportion to the tail track. It can hold about 6 cars where the tail can hold only about 3.
All JMO.
mbinsewi Is this about the tracks at camp #2? Mike.
Is this about the tracks at camp #2?
On a prototype, they might do that if there was more flat area up top near the camp than in the valley near the curve along the river and the bridge.
Also, there is a runaround/passign siding all the way down the hill at the mainline. The switchback has a series of facing and triling spurs, so I assume the railroad/modeler only needs the short runarounds to serve camps 2 and 1, since they are opposite in direction from the other spurs.
so wouldn't the "runaround" track be better on the main track, not the switchback?
doesn't this arrangement require the entire train to be in the switchback in order to reverse the engine position?
I think it's a runaround track, not a passing siding.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
first, i really like the Virginia & Truckahee layout design (yes, it's for small trains)
but i don't understand why the passing siding is on the switchback spur in the bottom right corner and not on the track leading up to the switchback. Is the entire train expected to back into the switchback, switch cars, reverse the engine and then back out of it?